Post by bistro on Jun 23, 2015 7:44:23 GMT -5
Gamso for the defense-you’ve got to make them lose!
June 13, 2015 gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2015/06/consequence.html
Consequence
“You've got to make them lose to make them learn.”
That was Cathy Cook, arguing in the Supreme Court of Ohio about what it would take to get prosecutors to stop cheating, lying, hiding evidence in capital cases. Instead, what the court did, routinely, was admonish.
Bad prosecutor. Don't do that again. Be aware, one of these days if you keep it up we'll reverse a conviction.
Empty threats. No consequence. No change in behavior. The prosecutors were righteous, after all. They weren't breaking the rules in order to convict the factually innocent. They were taking bad guys off the street. No need for the niceties.
So yeah, undoing some of those convictions based on prosecutor misconduct might achieve something - especially if the courts really had balls and said that they couldn't try the defendants again - even if the prosecutors said that they were bad dudes who'd done bad stuff. Make 'em lose and maybe they'd learn.
Or maybe not. Because really, the cops'll just bust the guys so they can do it again. Or maybe the cops'll shoot next time and save everyone the bother. I mean, they can do that with pretty much no consequence to them even without much in the way of justification. See Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray and . . . . Well, just look at Michael Brelo who was, after all, acquitted.*
Rick Horowitz suggests a different approach to the cops, making them have personal liability insurance for their police behavior ( www.rhdefense.com/2015/06/11/insuring-that-all-lives-matter#more-9479 ). <more at the links>
June 13, 2015 gamso-forthedefense.blogspot.com/2015/06/consequence.html
Consequence
“You've got to make them lose to make them learn.”
That was Cathy Cook, arguing in the Supreme Court of Ohio about what it would take to get prosecutors to stop cheating, lying, hiding evidence in capital cases. Instead, what the court did, routinely, was admonish.
Bad prosecutor. Don't do that again. Be aware, one of these days if you keep it up we'll reverse a conviction.
Empty threats. No consequence. No change in behavior. The prosecutors were righteous, after all. They weren't breaking the rules in order to convict the factually innocent. They were taking bad guys off the street. No need for the niceties.
So yeah, undoing some of those convictions based on prosecutor misconduct might achieve something - especially if the courts really had balls and said that they couldn't try the defendants again - even if the prosecutors said that they were bad dudes who'd done bad stuff. Make 'em lose and maybe they'd learn.
Or maybe not. Because really, the cops'll just bust the guys so they can do it again. Or maybe the cops'll shoot next time and save everyone the bother. I mean, they can do that with pretty much no consequence to them even without much in the way of justification. See Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and Freddie Gray and . . . . Well, just look at Michael Brelo who was, after all, acquitted.*
Rick Horowitz suggests a different approach to the cops, making them have personal liability insurance for their police behavior ( www.rhdefense.com/2015/06/11/insuring-that-all-lives-matter#more-9479 ). <more at the links>